Climate, energy report released53 recommendations aim at lower greenhouse gases By Bo Petersen (Contact)
The Post and Courier
Thursday, August 7, 2008
More nuclear power is on the table, right next to "green" fuels. Tougher building codes are up there, right next to consumer energy efficiency programs. South Carolina Climate ChangeThe state's Climate, Energy and Commerce Action Plan released Wednesday is a behemoth of 53 recommendations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by one-third within 12 years. Putting them all in play would mean passing restrictive laws and finding money to create incentives. They would also mean cultivating a culture of voluntary energy conservation by everyone from heavy industry to the homeowner screwing in light bulbs. The sometimes-opposing interest groups who sat as representatives for a year on Gov. Mark Sanford's committee say this is doable. "The main question is, are we going to be compelled to do it," said Lewis Gossett, president the S.C. Manufacturers Alliance and chairman of Citizens for Sound Conservation. Previous storyPanel details energy action plan, published 07/05/08 "If it's realistic and if it's reliable, I think you'll see people do it. We're really looking to see what's in it that we can embrace. At the same time, we'll be very critical, very careful in our review to make sure there aren't things in it that will destroy the competitiveness of South Carolina industry," Gossett said. For South Carolina Electric and Gas, which has two nuclear plants in the works, nuclear power "is going to have to be the linchpin to get us there (to that reduction)," said Robert Yannity, public affairs supervisor. As far as developing "green" power sources such as solar or wind, "right now the state is just not blessed with enough natural resources to help with that. As those energy sources are developed, we'll look further at it," he said. The report is widely expected to be a blueprint for creating a state energy policy. Energy policies are a new initiative among states, and South Carolina would be among the first to develop one. They work like zoning to set guidelines for how energy is produced and used. The committee's job was to put together recommendations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 5 percent below 1990 levels in South Carolina — a reduction that would be 35 percent less than what's emitted now and more than 50 percent less than what's expected to be emitted by 2020. And to do it while growing the state's economy. Most scientists agree that man-made emissions of greenhouse gases are exacerbating climate warming. Researchers warn the warming could cause environmental, economic and health crises. The state report includes breakdowns of the costs and cost-benefits of implementing each recommendation. Implementing the recommendations may mean more costs up front for taxpayers, industries and consumers, but will create savings for them in energy use down the line. And it will create jobs, said Ben Moore, Coastal Conservation League climate and energy program director. "We're not talking about lowering the standard of living in South Carolina, we're talking about improving it," he said. Developing more-efficient energy sources and using energy more efficiently is the key to the plan, he said. It makes sense for building more nuclear plants — controversial among some environmental interests — to be on the table, because the process doesn't burn carbon fuel. "After all, these things are just recommendations," Moore said. "I'm looking forward to the debate in this state about what belongs in our energy policy." |
Article tools |
|
Notice about comments: Charleston.net is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Charleston.net does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not charleston.net. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "suggest removal" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website. Full terms and conditions can be read here. |
Comments
This article has 17 comment(s)
Posted by zoomru on August 7, 2008 at 4:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
WHAT??? Robert Yannity, public affairs supervisor said.... "As far as developing "green" power sources such as solar or wind, "right now the state is just not blessed with enough natural resources to help with that. As those energy sources are developed, we'll look further at it," he said. "
Robert....YOU LIAR !! Have you ever spent time at the BEACH !! NOT ENOUGH NATURAL RESOURCES ??? You LIAR !!
Wholly-COW ...who wrote this article...Hmm ..BO Petersen !!
BO...what kind of reporter ARE YOU ??!! YOU didn't ask Robert about the turbines from www.selsam.com?? You didn't ask Robert if he had ever been to the BEACH ??!
CITIZENS of this STATE...this is a PRIME example of AGENDA reporting !!! Bo ..do I need to take a picture of WIND blowing through OUR PALM TREES....?? ARE YOU A ROOKIE??
BO..have you ever driven down I-26 from TRYON or Hendersonville into Spartanburg ??? WE have WIND UP THERE....BUCKO !!! YOU Don't FOOL ...US !!
NO wonder OUR citizens have no direction...........!!!
Posted by zoomru on August 7, 2008 at 4:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Uh oh...........
This report upon the FIRST read looks like it was COPIED from one that was used OUT in California !!!
LOOK OUT...TAXPAYERS !!
This is a Lawyer FEST ...BONANZA !!!
2020 year timetables too boot!!!
What about ....NOW!!! This is a C-Y-A document !!!
Posted by RW on August 7, 2008 at 7:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Here comes the state buying into the Global Warming Hoax! Not one single shred of proof for this scam!
Posted by wpc3iop on August 7, 2008 at 9:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Al Gore and his global warming crowd will be proud...What BS!
Posted by amylrod on August 7, 2008 at 9:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"As far as developing "green" power sources such as solar or wind, "right now the state is just not blessed with enough natural resources to help with that. As those energy sources are developed, we'll look further at it,..."
Can someone explain to me what natural resources are needed to develop solar power? Wind power, for obvious reasons, needs wind, which in this area amounts to a breeze, unless you live along the coast or the upstate. Driving on the high plateaus of Wyoming and Colorado, you feel the wind, but here? And solar power? Besides the sun, what else is needed? Money? Yeah, that must be the natural resource that is missing...Anyone who knows what "other natural resources are missing," please step up to the plate.
Posted by martin on August 7, 2008 at 10:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Sweden, while trying to meet Kyoto emissions standards, has increased economic growth by 44%. Read the following short story (it's not a link; enter address in browser):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/...
Guys, so what if climate change is a natural reoccuring phenomenon that has nothing to do with carbon emissions.
Surely, you do believe that huge chunks of ice pack are melting in the Arctic and we are rapidly moving toward having a Northwest Passage, that was only dreamed about 400 years ago; that warming is happening.
It doesn't matter what's causing it, it has never happened when there were billions of people on the planet who will be impacted, along with your grandchildren (who you obviously aren't particularly interested in).
Therefore, we need to do some planning to understand and mitigate the effects rather than just ranting about science.
Posted by Jameson on August 7, 2008 at 11:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
There is enough wind 10 or so miles of our coast to power our state two times over.
The solar potential is limited only by our state's and our utilities' WILL to find ways to exploit it. (How is it that Germany is the world leader in solar, when the sun barely shines there?).
There is enough energy efficiency potential in our state to supply at least 10% of the state's needs (equivalent to numerous large power plants).
For utilities and lobbyists for our state's manufacturers to downplay these resources should make readers deeply suspicious.
We can't solve this problem by sticking to business-as-usual strategies and keeping all of our eggs in the same old baskets.
In the face of risk, these guys should diversify the way they do business -- the same as any successful investor.
I want to see all the jobs and revenues that are expected from the new "green" economy come here and not pass us by.
Posted by RW on August 7, 2008 at 12:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Martin,
There is nothing going on with the cliemat..that is not natural! Volcanoes put more CO2 in the atmosphere then man! That is not bebateable. CO2 is not a pollutant either!
Posted by PalmettoDP on August 7, 2008 at 1:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Implementing the recommendations may mean more costs up front for taxpayers, industries and consumers, but will create savings for them in energy use down the line."
In other words, this is not a pro-growth policy. This is about intentionally raising the cost of energy in order to divert funding to techonologies that may or may not be viable.
In the next few years, there will be much cheaper solar panels on the market. If they work and save people money, people will buy them. Today's solar panels are too expensive and wind energy requires backup power for days when the wind is not blowing.
If these regulations are implemented, get ready for rolling blackouts...
Posted by RW on August 7, 2008 at 2:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
PalmettoDP
Exactly. The liberals cant just come out and say they wish to detroy our system.They have to have some sort of a cause that does the same thing.Environmentalism is just the cause. These greens do not care a rats &^& about the planet.All they care about is detroying capitalism. I could care less if the worlds temeperature have risen 1 degree over the past 100 yrs. No damage at all.In fact it allows for a longer agricultural season. Nope..I will continue to lobby my reps never to support this UN money grab! Man has nothing to do with the climate!
Posted by Johnq2 on August 7, 2008 at 6:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
RW/tripsa- What the hell is your problem? I seriously doubt you even know what a liberal is. Just what in your Limbaugh addled brain makes you think liberals or any other American wants to destroy our system?
You need to realize that the "system" has been perverted by the neocon takeover of the republican party. How do you explain us going to war under false pretense in Iraq? Hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent to "protect Americans lives from terrorists" while the very same government will let its own citizens die because of lack of health care.
If this is the system you advocate, endless war and a greed infested corporate climate where citizens are not humans but consumers to be exploited and thrown away when no longer needed you are damn right I want to overthrow THAT corrupt and immoral system. You got a problem with that? WHY?
Explain yourself about what it is about "liberals" that you mindlessly blame for all the ills in this country.
You remind me of the wacko in Knoxville who murdered people in a church because he hated liberals. For christs sake the guy was unemployed and poor. He listened to Limbaugh and Hannity and somehow came to conclude that the rich guy war party was his preferred ideal.
I guess he was just stupid or brainwashed into killing those that he had much more in common with than the ideology that he thought he was part of.
Posted by RW on August 7, 2008 at 7:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
johnq,
A social and idelaogical liberal advocates the govt bringing about social change. This is done trhough socialism.Where the govt confiscates the means of production and sometimes private property. The problems with this system are readily observable. Look at the failed socialist systems of France and the Old Soviet Union.The Soviet Union kept it's position by way of the KGB.People that opposed the system were simply shot! In Cuba the same thing! There is no personl freedoms in these systems. I know that you are not a releigious person.I am. I ama Christian.I would not have the right to worship in Cuba, China, VietNam or the now defunct Soviet Union. Nor could I own private property, go into business or have freedom of speech. In France it is true they still have a democracy.However the socialist govt makes it darn near impossible to make meaningful changes. The new Prime Minister will try. Lastly huge inefficient backward federal beaucracies unsurp personl freedom. Most govt programs are third rate at best.Seldom able to compete with the private sector. Conservatives do not hate Govt.Govt is ordained by the creator.But we will not stand idly by while attempts are made to destroy free markets and encroach on personal liberties. This will lead to war. As far as the hate filled SOB who murdered the innocent people in the church.He was correct about the wicked nature and logical conclusions of liberalism. And the church was one that preached liberal theology.However that is irrelevant. They were innocent people who were murdered in cold blood.Conservatism is compassionate by nature but merit based. Absolutely no special rights for anyone. But saying that we realize that some people may need a helping hand. We should be able to vote for policies that we wish and it is not the reponsibilities of an unaccountable appeals court judge to issue decrees that will never see the light of day in any other way. I appreciate your questions.We can stop yelling at each other. Our personal experiences guide us in our views that liberalism just fails in everything.
Posted by rollo on August 7, 2008 at 7:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
There's enough BS on this article to provide methane fuel for 100 years! And if you quit driving around on flat tires, you'll never have to buy gasoline again!!!
Now, Seriously,...
There are no "greenhouse gasses". That is a fact that has been demonstrated by the proponents of the "Greenhouse Effect" theory themselves.
The "Greenhouse Effect" theory dictates that for the "Effect" to work, there must be a significant upward trend in temperature in the upper troposphere. After 60 years of weather balloon and satellite study no such trend has been discovered.
Sorry to bust your bubble, but there is no "Greenhouse Effect", there are no "Greenhouse Gasses".
You have been hoaxed!
Posted by rollo on August 7, 2008 at 8:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
zoomru;
Windmills are an old technology, if they were actually viable here, don't you think the coast would be littered with them?
They don't dot our landscape because they aren't reliable!
We are working (the company I work for)on re-building,/ replacing components of a windmill that was installed in the 1930s for the purpose of pumping replenishment water to a swimming pool. It was abandoned because the wind lacked reliability. The owner now wants to try it again, we'll do the work, but we can only promise our work will be right. We cannot promise results based on the whims of the wind.
Posted by Johnq2 on August 7, 2008 at 8:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Govt is ordained by the creator"...- WTF?
"Conservatism is compassionate by nature but merit based" -Yeah right...
"But we will not stand idly by while attempts are made to destroy free markets and encroach on personal liberties. This will lead to war." -Against who? Liberals?
...........................................
The United States government was not ordained by the creator- it was created by we the people to create a more perfect union.
Yeah those 4,000+ American soldiers who died in Iraq for those compassionate conservatives might disagree.
I don't know where you live but under Bush we have lost more personal liberties than at anytime in our history. In case you didn't notice we have been at war so Bush and those naturally compassionate conservatives can reap the profits derived from the misery and death of thousands.
As far as I am concerned there is little difference between Bush and the neocon criminals he has surrounded him with than that nutcase in Knoxville except the blood on Bush's hands is also on all those who voted for him and continue to support his cause. They are the enemies of this country and will soon be exposed and brought to justice after they are thrown out in the next election.
I don't see how anyone who calls themselves a republican under Bush can call themselves christians. They have enabled and supported torture and the wholesale slaughter of thousands of innocents for which any god of any religion will exact a heavy toll on judgment day.
Posted by RW on August 8, 2008 at 7:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
johnq,
You are a tough egg to crack. A good liberal! One more challenge. Wich country is better than the US?
Posted by rollo on August 8, 2008 at 8:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
RW,
Someting you must learn about libs. They are evolved beyond our comprehension. They have access to enlightened thinking beyond any form of thinking we can hope to understand. Speaker Pelosi is only trying to save the planet!! LOL!